9/11 Without Tinfoil 2: The Deception

[indigitydogdignation]

[StillDiggin]

And of these thousands of witnesses, looking out of windows and such, how many would be looking for a plane?

How easy would it be for them to accept that they just didn't see it because it "all just happened so fast." How many of them thought the view from their TV was better than their distant and awkward perspective? How many of these people now believe that it must have been a plane because they saw in on TV?

With regard to the "impact", you say the outer steel beams gave way? With perfectly horizontal "break points?"

I've got to give you props for arguing in an intelligent manner up to that point, but you lost me at "hello" with that claim.

C'mon, do you really expect people to believe that steel "breaks" like that? LEGOS, maybe... but not steel beams. I may not be sure of exactly when and I may not be sure of exactly how, but those steel beams were cut - no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

I will no longer be debating about witnesses and I will no longer be debating about magical planes and steel beams that break without tearing or bending, both of which were apparently present at the south tower in your mind.

Your argument for momentum works only for parts of a plane that would have encountered weaker sections, such as glass (except the glass went the other way?).

As far as parts that would have impacted steel, I'm guessing the mass would be 100 lbs at maximum, because that's how much I'm guessing a cross-section of a wing of equal width to any beam would weigh.

The engines and maybe the landing gear would be the only parts of any plane that would have even come close to bothering those steel beams. The fuselage would have crumpled like an empty coke can crumples under your foot when you step on it. Instead, in many videos we see it come out the other side, still fully intact?

Maybe asking you to imagine a moving building was too much to ask. Maybe we need a real-world experiment. Tell you what: Grab a stopwatch, a tape measure, a calculator and a tractor-trailer. Measure exactly 100 feet from the front of the truck.

Have the truck driver work the stop watch while you run as fast as you can into the grill of the truck. While you "walk it off" calculate the speed at which you smashed into the truck in mph.

Set down the calculator, the tape measue, and the stopwatch - and stand in the middle of the road. Instruct the truck driver to drive into you at that exact same speed.

After all this, ask yourself this question: "Which of the two times that your face hit the grill hurt more - or was it about the same?"

Even if you still don't "get it" after that, at least I will have the satisfaction of knowing that you were hit twice by a big truck.

If anyone reading this doesn't "get it" by now, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you any longer. I'm already on to my next project anyway. Please sell your hokum elsewhere, because I've already walked away from you in disgust.

[urbanspaceman]

What's the next project? The "no-towers" theory? The "no-Manhattan" theory?

With all due respect, Stilldiggin (who has walked away in disgust and hence won't be responding to this anyway, right?), you sound sincere and intelligent but how you could base this theory soley on the impact photos, videos, and your laymen's knowledge of engineering, is beyond me.

For someone to argue "my position is based solely on common sense" when they have no scientific expertise or expereince in an area is a strange position. The attacks of 9/11 were so unique and without precedent that "common sense" doesn't apply. How many 757's have you seen fly into World Trade Center type buildings before? It is not a "common sense" experience.

It used to be common sense that heavier objects would fall faster than then lighter ones, but it isn't true.

Another question for no-planers: when trying to get at the truth, physical evidence does not always trump witness testimony. That wouldn't happen in court. Imagine a case where 100 witnesses saw a guy commit a muder, but there was DNA evidence of another person planted on the murder weapon. If you went by physical evidence alone and ignored the witnesses, you wouldn't get at the truth.

You really do have to look at the whole event, the whole picture, to come up with a plausible scenario. To base everything on some fuzzy physics and some photos amounts to little more than a magic-bullet theory. Sure it's logical, if you're willing to accept certain premises.

The argument that no-planes is a "lower risk plan" makes little sense to me. Obviously remote controlled planes could be flown with precision, since the intent of putting remote controlled systems in planes was to perform the precise manuveur of landing the plane safely. So no-planes is not lower risk there.

More complex = higher risk. The no-plane theory is a lot more elaborate and complex then just flying the damn planes in. If you just fly the planes in, there's no need to brainwash and intimidate witnesses, no need to hide the original planes and kill passengers elsewhere, no need to fake flight data, no need to fool air traffic controllers, no need to create special effects videos, no need to plant aircraft parts, no need to suppress or fake records.

[StillDiggin]

[hawkwind]

[indigitydogdignation]

[dilbert_g]

I'm about done with The "no-towers" theory? The "no-Manhattan" theory?

However, upon careful examination, and with due respect for McGowan, I'm seeing his points that

a) virtually ALL the Pgon witnesses cited (who had names and not initials) (who were traceable) were either closely linked to the military or deep govt suspect positions, plus an unusual number of people from the Gannett kingdom which publishes about a half-dozen military publications.
i.e. possibly not your best sources

b) many of the non-spook witnesses had stories which either contradicted other stories or contradicted photo evidence

c) the impact from the plane should have (mostly) shattered the nosecone, while leaving a deep, clear imprint/hole of the wing+engine assy., i.e. NOT a circular shape but a shape more like the Towers.

Now I'm not saying I'm 100% sold on that, but whereas I completely dismissed Von Kleist and his ilk in the past, and still do, my impression of McGowan's arguments is that they do not sound so kooky.

One thing McGowan cracks on is certain people who use the "wrong shape" argument to say "No Plane" hit the Pgon, while they disingenuously use the "correct shape" argument to say "No Plane" hit the Towers.

I just think his points (more detailed) are worth considering, perhaps on another thread.

That's all.

Fintan, what's your take on McGowan? Any fatal flaws?

[urbanspaceman]

[dilbert_g]

Hey Spaceman,
NO NO NO. I'm all down with the ad-hominem attacks --- at least to a degree. I mean we don't want to be like Free Republic where it's just attack attack attack, but a little sarcasm is what this forum thrives on.

I even let some of Neo's Jew-baiting pass, like the first time he accused me of sneaky and deceptive arguments.

Ad-hom works at times, esp when a person is so insistent on the ridiculously implausible. People videoed the 2nd plane flying in for at least 5 seconds before it hit. Even people who might not have been staring open-mouthed at the fire, the moment everyone heard a low flying plane coming in, you'd be damn sure everyone instinctively looked up.

What I meant was I am done arguing with any "ghost plane" at the South Tower bulloney. I really don't get it, but even if it were possible (and anything is possible), it's so implausible --- and like I said --- how could you prove it?

I took a look at that photo. (The link doesn't work for some reason, because 911review.com is a mirror to 911review.wtc7.net, but I was able to navigate there by clicks.)

I DO appreciate HOFFMAN, and In Plane Site is trash logic in many ways, there IS plane parts at the Pgon for example, but as I said, McGowan makes some strong counter points on what evidence was photographed.

Hoffman's photo on that page does not clearly show serious damage to the façade that should be there. Yes, the skin on the planes is 2mm thick, but the wing between the engines HAS to be solid as hell, based on what I now realize about the forces the wings must withstand. They'd rip off the body on every landing if they were merely bolted on to the body. Sure they contain fuel, but they have to hold up the engines and wheels. When a plane goes bouncing and skidding on a runway, it's the wings taking all the impact of that momentum. He shows a photo of a passenger jet under construction. The wings are basically a solid assembly from one engine to the other. The nose is purely a shell. The nose only needs to keep out the impact of birds. The nose is a popcan.

For the nose to have punched through 3 layers and the wings to have disintegrated is the opposite of what should happen, I think, unless the instrument panel is a block of Kryptonite. Sure, the wings may very well have shredded, but not without causing some serious, serious damage, that is to say, far more damage than the nose. I'm afraid that when I rejected In Plane Site, I was throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And testimony McGowan describes where the 'flight attendant' who is a friend of John Judge who was given a ground tour (???) said she saw seats and such, but charred bones with no flesh?

This is John Judge's "conspiracy co-researcher" flight attendant friend who was given a ground tour of secure areas. I did not read the details of Judge's account before, but this does sound fishy, doesn't it?

McGowan is very good at highlighting these fallacies, in a way that impressed me.

As for "pull IT", I think that was probably an intentional psy-op done by Silverstein, NOT merely "pull the firemen" --- much like Peter Powers' interview where said he was running drills on 7/7, but was ambiguous at first about the fact that the drills were done in a boardroom on paper with coffee and donuts, executive management drills.

But on the construction of a Boeing, I think he's on the money.

Ad-hom, keep slingin' them, dickhead. Cool.

[dilbert_g]

Quote from old Free Republic, for what it's worth
interesting thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b1aa4cb0517.htm

We seemed to have a respite from the government huggers for a while there. It was like someone called for a short vacation for the crew. Now they are back full force, which suggests that something big is about to blow, probably the Key Report, and the government huggers want to be rested and ready.

As I pointed out in another thread, it's mportant to keep the facts in the case tgether and handle them as a unit. If you allow the huggers to break up the evidence into tiny pieces they can argue about it endlessly, which is their objective. But if you keep all of the facts in the case together as a whole, the reports of the bomb squad AND the Partin report AND the eyewitness affidavits AND the bomb dogs AND the Eglin Report AND the audio recording AND the photos of wrapped building debris and Ryder trucks in secret camps AND the FBI's now admitted cover-up of evidence AND the ex-agents statements of withheld evidence AND the FBI lab scandal, the government huggers have a much rougher time trying to keep the lid on, since they have to stand there shouting "tin foil", and "liar", and "fraud", and "in cahoots with the commies", at everything at once, making it very obvious that denial of the facts, rather than the facts, is what the government huggers are all about.

Michael Rivero

[indigitydogdignation]

[urbanspaceman]

[urbanspaceman]

Sorry, forgot the after 'numbnuts', indicating my playful punch-on-the-shoulder sarcasm!

[Turner]

[dilbert_g]

OK, I looked at oilempire and the wtc7 link, which I've seen before. I never really examined them all, esp not to look for photoshopping.

I thought it was CDE rings that were penetrated by a small circle. It's true, I DO see a large portion of the façade damaged.

I can't explain why the engines did not fully penetrate the façade, if the nose did, but I agree that at very least it's ambiguous.

Even though nobody saw a missile, COULD one have been spiked in there just before the plane hit? I think they fly much faster than a Boeing is capable. Supersonic? Sonic BOOM?

Anyhow, that's where I admit I was stuck, so I dropped the matter and concentrated on other known things, or known statements. I couldn't quite reconcile what LOOKED like a clean hole (too small) with other photos showing extensive damage (but not holes).

There I go, giving the benefit of the doubt again. Is it really a kaleidescope or just pure disinfo about "no plane"?

I wish people like McGowan would come here just to discuss things, with no one trying to take some ABSOLUTE position on these issues. I ought to go to DC sometime and see how many civilians I can find who saw it.

I gotta run, I'll look it over again later.